On 22 January 2013 17:51, Alec Teal wrote: > On 22/01/13 17:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote: >>> >>> You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw. >> >> Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like. >> >>> Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try >>> and >>> diffuse just one person's (potentially wrong) perception clang has better >>> error reports than GCC is not what I had in mind. >> >> What makes you think I'm bitching? >> >> My point was to draw your attention to an entire wiki page on the >> subject of diagnostic comparisons, with examples and links to relevant >> bug repots, to point out we're well aware of the issue and are doing >> something productive about it. Ranting about Clang's impressive >> features achieves what exactly? >> > I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify: > I define bitching to be "pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing gets > done".
Please check GCC's changelogs before you tell me I'm acting so nothing gets done. > Like the error thing "well actually that's a myth from some > deep dark place where they used a really old GCC and a new Clang", silly, if > GCC is better why is it not said "Clang has useless error reports!" Because it doesn't. But the frequently repeated "GCC has terrible error reports" is not as true as it used to be. > So how could we (you, I know I'm not ready) remedy this? Start telling > people GCC doesn't do this legendary "folding" thing and keeps track of > tokens (I read somewhere, I think it was an old paper by Mozilla about > Treehydra and Dehydra (now dead) that GCC cannot map things back to lines of > source code, then somewhere else that Clang can track stuff though > macro-expansions, GCC turns "x-x" to "0" which causes a problem for static > analysis - this is a good optimization but it's being done too early). > Have an option where GCC outputs stuff that's verbose and easier for an Ide > to parse, I understand a lot of stuff relies on the current way, why not > that? Macros are good (if not over-used, there are some VILE ones out there) > but debugging macro-ed code is the bane of any programmers' day. Do you mean like the "Automatic Macro Expansion" section of http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison ? > If you are going to bitch in reply at least include some links to things > worth reading that are ideally quite long and dirty, if you'd respond > seriously, it'd be much welcome. I'm not bitching, I'm giving you pointers to where this has already been discussed, but you don't seem interested in reading it. I'm sorry if that page isn't long or dirty enough, maybe you'd like to help contribute to it? Or suggest improvments? But you do need to read it first, because you're raising points that are already documented. > I was honestly hoping for a good "chat" about the pros and cons, what could > be done about things, you know interesting stuff, not " > > > Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like. > > " Please get up to speed on the current status of GCC or a chat is wasting people's time. This list is not a chat room. File bugs, read about existing bugs, point out *concrete* deficiencies in the compiler or libraries, and people will be happy to discuss it.
